Talk:Prawn farm massacre

Iwasaki your reverts
That is a matter of your personal opinion and I respect it but it is not from a Tamil source but from a neutral source.Mr. McGowan is a respected person.We cannot edit as per our personal views maybe you should learn from Lahiru .I may feel a book is racist or biased but that is your personal opinion.Books may promoted by anyone look I or you are not the people to decide which book is what in an Encyclopedia.Secondly McGowan has nothing to do with the conflict and he is a neutral person,but you have right to your opinion.Please check WP:RS and this source is okay.Further Tamilcanadian or so cite the BBC,CNN ,Daily mirror and other leading newspapers as the case may be.Now that does not make it racist or so.You are entitled to your opinion but you do not like his views he cannot become racistHarlowraman 06:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of of a citation
Iwazaki, please refrain from vandalism of removing a released book and calling it "Racist site". I do not know of a country in which a book is called a racist site. It's a book released by a third party author. It is as RS as anything. Thanks Watchdogb 13:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No wonder why this book is promoted by racist tamil canadian web site, from where you may have probably got to know this unknown-book..This book written in a

way to condemn Sinhalese. Contents favours tamil and even LTTE..Kinda funny that this guy have totally missed the discrimination faced by the Sinhalese who lived/live in North and East. This is kind of book I except from Prabakaran himself not from an unknown self proclaimed journalist.I wont even recommend my dog to read this book. Iwazaki  会話. 討論 16:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well it is a book that is released. I am sure it has gone thru some fact checking/editorial. It is definately a RS Watchdogb 16:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Is McGowan a racist ?
This is what notable people who really matter say about him.

"McGowan has "a shrewd eye for details and a quick understanding of complexities..... In an era when many outsiders have been taken in by simplistic explanations of right and wrong, Mr. McGowan is anything but naive.""

—New York Times Book Review Notable Books of the Year 1992 ""An important book, full of lively reporting and insightful observations. As a study of how politically inflamed ethnic tensions can destroy a nation, it ranks with the best.""

—Newsday ""A gripping, first-rate mixture of travelogue, history and hard-edged reporting. ...McGowan's memorable prose captures the noise, passions and violence of a country that seems bent on destroying itself.""

—Publishers Weekly (starred review) ""McGowan is a good listener, a careful reporter and a sensitive observer…""

—The Washington Post Book World ""Mr. McGowan has a gift for literary travel writing in the Graham Greene tradition.""

—The Wall Street Journal "An "excellent book"" . —The Economist ""McGowan is a deft writer with a keen eye for observation... He provides a fascinating account of the war's tragic, mounting equation.""

—Foreign Affairs ""A well-told and depressing account… an impressive book. McGowan is a forthright witness who never lets simple moral distinctions blind him."" —The New Statesman ""McGowan’s journalism is exhaustive...This opus is bound to find a place on the list of must-reads on the subject.""

—Far Eastern Economic Review source Now where is the citation for him being a racist? where is the citation for being an unknown book ? or ist all personal opinion based on I DO NOT KNIOW IT, so it must not be true ?Taprobanus 19:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Reminds me the naked kings story !!
Once upon a time, there was a king who walked naked and still got praised for what he wore!!! So I am not really surprise with all those alleged compliments this book received, considering the fact that great tamil canadian, (to which Taproanus contributes) recommend this as a good reference book !! This book is written in such a neutral manner and thats may be why only tamil racist web-sites promoting this as a good reading book..I am not sure how this editor missed all those crimes committed against Sinhalese people..I am not sure how this editors made the conclusion(or giving impression) that east-north is tamil when Sinhalese dominated those areas long before the arrival of tamils..May be he went to those History classes conducted by Tamil chelvam !!! anyway, a book written by bias unknown person should not be used as a reference in a encyclopedia..Simply because it makes everything look comical. Iwazaki  会話. 討論 05:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

My perspective
As I've been asked twice (on my talk page) to comment on the removal of sources and as there is currently an active request for page protection for the article, I will post my thoughts here.

Let me state in advance that I've not read the book and so cannot comment on it personally. However, I will do my best to comment on it from the perspective of relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines:

Although the contents of the book are controversial even off-wiki, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, the publisher, is a respected one as far as I can tell. In addition, the book has received positive reviews from Library Journal, Kirkus Reviews (see the Amazon.com entry ), and a number of others (see ). Though, having not read the book, I can neither agree nor disagree with any opinion about it, the claims of bias would be strengthened if they were supported by reliable sources.
 * Is the source a reliable source?

If a statement is biased, WP:NPOV requires that it be removed or explicitly attributed. That may involve adding a clarifying footnote or something to the effect of "According to McGowan (1992), ...". Of course, that will first require demonstrating that the source is biased by verifying such claims through reference to reliable sources. In the absence of supporting sources, personal evaluations of the book constitute original research. The fact that TamilCanadian endorses the book does not really prove much, especially considering that many others have endorsed it as well. If they had published it, that'd be a different matter ...
 * How should the source be used?

In light of the request for page protection, I urge the editors involved to discuss the issue and refrain from excessive reverting. By the way, is the Trawick source also part of this dispute (it's been removed) or is that another issue? -- Black Falcon (Talk) 17:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * About Margret Trawick, Yes Taprobanus 18:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * More on this from the WP:RS talk page
 * The same information is in, so I removed the conference proceedings. Thansk for all your help Taprobanus 15:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Popping over due to discussions at WP:RS... In my opinion the conference proceedings were iffy but reliable... however, Enemy Lines is clearly a reliable source under Wikipedia's rules. Given the nature of the statement it is being used to support, the next question is whether it might be considered a bias source... if so... I would recommend a text attribution and direct quotes. (ie "According to Prof. Margret Trawick, 'Quote from book'  ." That makes it clear that the statement is based on what Prof. Trawick says, and allows for the possibility that it is not a firm fact. Blueboar 16:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I will do that, thanks Taprobanus 13:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

More background needed
Some exposition should be provided to link this incident up with the Tamil Civil War. Also, some follow up information would be useful. When were the quotes at the end of the article made? Was there ever any justice or trial regarding this? --Lendorien 16:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I looked for it but came up empty handed. This is the case with the civil war. Watchdogb 13:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

UTHR
UTHR is a very neutral source. I will provide some links for you to decide your self


 * 
 * . Here they are called "Leading righs body"
 * Uthr reported abuses by LTTE]
 * If anythin UTHR is a anti-LTTE source.
 * More people using UTHR.

I think you can make up your mind if this source is RS or not based on this. Thanks Watchdogb 21:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the links. I also did a little searching and found various other links (all from reliable sources) that all suggest that the UTHR is a neutral and reliable source.
 * PBS Frontline: UTHR "has published scathing reports detailing human-rights abuses in Sri Lanka", including criticism of the LTTE
 * BBC: "a prominent Tamil human rights groups accused the Tamil Tigers ..."
 * Chronicle of Higher Education: "The University Teachers for Human Rights is the only remaining Tamil Human-Rights group critical of the Tiger leadership."
 * International Herald Tribune: "an independent Sri Lankan advocacy group"
 * Would you mind if I copied this thread to Talk:Prawn farm massacre? Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 22:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * While attempting to defend UTHR, you have proved exactly what I was saying..UTHR, is an all tamil organization!! See for your selves what the sources given by you claiming. BBC, prominent tamil organization, Chronicle of Higher Education, Tamil Human-Rights group.. So isn't it obvious, whether they accuses LTTE(why shouldn't they after all LTTE took the life of its founder)or not, this organization is an all-tamil group and not-suitable as a source in accusation against government of SL for alleged crimes against tamil people.. And for its contradictions, I need a bit time to go through all my previous posts. I will show how this group contradicted it self, in their reports. SO till then, NO , for this source in these kind of cases. And thanks a lot for justifying my claims about their nature. Iwazaki  会話. 討論 02:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the UTHR is an all-Tamil organisation (as far as I know). So? ... No, really, so what? Tamils can't be neutral? Tamils can't be unbiased? The Washington Post is a mostly-American organisation. The Government of Japan is an all-Japanese organisation. That doesn't make them any less reliable. What you seem to have missed from the links above is that they consider the UTHR a reliable and neutral source, who has criticised both the LTTE and the GOSL. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 17:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If you really don't know a difference between a nation and a race, please refrain from making comments. America is a nation represent by all types of races, unlike UTHR. UTHR is all tamil organization and, and they are inherently bias to tamil. They may have criticized LTTE(who won't ??) or the GOSL, but that doesn't NOT change the fact that they are a ALL tamil organization with an agenda against the Sinhalese people..Why would those sources call this organization an all tamil one ? why ? Please be constructive in your comments and keep that you an administrator and should not take sided, in your mind.. Iwazaki  会話. 討論 01:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Iwazaki, I know full well the difference between a nation, an ethnicity, and a race, but the type of group doesn't matter. So what if it's all-Tamil? Tamils can't be neutral when writing about Tamils? You write that the UTHR has "an agenda against the Sinhalese people". That's a pretty strong accusation, especially in light of the fact that groups like the International Herald Tribune consider it an independent organisation. Do you have any sources to back up that claim? -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Prove that UTHR contradicts in its reports.go through my posts here. And Mylanthanai massacre happened on August 9, 1992, And UTHR explicitly said, this has been the first attack on Tamil civilians of a comparable scale ..So if we were to believe UTHR, we should dismiss the pawn farm massacre totally(which happened in 1987 !!)..Hope this would clear the dust. Iwazaki  会話. 討論 01:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Iwazaki, take note that it says this has been the first attack on Tamil civilians of a comparable scale . If it had said "This is the first attack on Tamil civilians" then your arguments would make sense. However, it does NOT say that this is that is the FIRST attack. Just that FIRS ATTACK ON A COMPARABLE SCALE. Also it does not matter if UTHR is a Tamil Human rights organization. Why does it ? UTHR has been used by many RS and some have called it "Leading rights group". It is one thing to call a Human rights organization bias because it is bias in it's report (that would be the case if it talked only against GOSL/SLA) but it is TOTALLY unacceptable to call a human rights organization, who have been quoted by many RS, bias because "UTHR is all Tamil organization". This is an attack on the whole race because it implies that Tamils cannot be trusted because they are "Tamil" and they will always go against another race (IE Sinhalese). I am sorry but this is very bad arguments. Also, following you logic then we should not put out citations of what the Sinhalese Police say. We should call a court ruling bias and unfair if the judge Sinhalese. We should not take quote what BBC Sinhala says. Taking you analogy further, we should not take citations from AFP (American Free press), BBC (British Broadcasting Cooperation) or AP.  unacceptable  Watchdogb 04:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * A brief language lesson ; First check the work comparable and then scale from whatever dictionary you have. Then read both article to compare

death figures. Finally use your pre-school maths to compare which is the greatest. I made my comments based on what you have given here. Most of the sources call UTHR, a tamil human right organization, and why would you dispute this here ? I gave them credit for condemning the LTTE terrorists, whom some referred as freedom fighters!!.I have never heard freedom fighters(?!) who started their freedom struggle by killing innocent people.Astonishing isn't it ??!! And please try to understand the differnce between a nation and a race. Britain, USA or even canada where you live are nations and irrelevant here. Plus, If you have problems believing those why don't you raise this at the relevant pages ? Iwazaki  会話. 討論 15:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from attacking Black folcon by implying that he is choosing sides. Please read WP:POINT. Thanks. Watchdogb 04:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You know we have a beautiful phrase in Sinhalese to describe your above action..It is, Kuliyata kahinava  .. I have already explained to him about what I wrote and apologize if I have written something insulting (though I believe I did not). So your interference here is not necessary here, and I will ignore it,just like I ignore all the other noises. Iwazaki  会話. 討論 15:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Kuliyata, what a beautiful Tamil word introduced into Sinhala by all those Indentured workers who went to (Kuliyata Vadakaranta) Sri Lanka and became Sinhalese through assimilation such as the Durava. Anyway this is English wikipedia so please keep the conversation in English. Anway for those who dont know Sinhalese, the above phrase (Kuliyata kahinava ) can be considered to violate WP:NPA. See Coolie a racial slur. Thanks Taprobanus 17:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * UTHR is not the only soruce that is given in this article. Please stop making claims that it is because there are more than enough here. Watchdogb 14:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Its the primary source and I have reasons to believe other sources merely quote it, esp in giving death tolls. And yes, I have shown why it fails WP:RS Iwazaki  会話. 討論 15:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not the primary source, there are 2 academic books on this particular massacre. Thanks Taprobanus 17:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Aside from your personal attack on me there is very little argument presented here against both UTHR and other sources. You say things that you think are true but fail to back up things. Then you say something like " I have shown why it fails WP:RS". Please point to Wikipedia policies where it says that an orginization that remains NPOV and is quoted by RS is not RS because it mono ethnical. There are very many tamils who have been neutral and some who are heavily on the side of GOSL Luxman Kadirgaman. Thanks Watchdogb 00:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

What is the primary source here ?
UTHR is given as the source in the intro and some are arguing its not the primary source. If it is not UTHR, what is the primary source ? And on what that source is based ? From where that source has taken figures ? Iwazaki  会話. 討論 16:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Who says that primary source cannot be used ? It is said that Primary sources cannot be heavily reallied on and on this article there are many other citations given. So Primary source exist only to back up other claims. Watchdogb 16:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Scroll up and read.. according to UTHR, this incident is a FAKE ! and dont forget to sharpen your math too Iwazaki  会話. 討論 16:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Where does it say that ? It says it is the first attack on a comparable scale. What the comparable scale they are talking about ? I do not know. However, it does not say it is the first attack. Watchdogb 17:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * for that u need to check a dictionary, Compare the numbers ,and use a bit(portion) of brain. Iwazaki  会話. 討論 17:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from Personal attack. As I said earlier it says that this was the attack of comparable scale. What scale they are using ? I don't know. What attributes are they using ? I don't know. However, I know one thing for sure. They did not say that that was the FIRST attack on civilians. Thanks Watchdogb 17:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * (EC) Iwazaki, again, please refrain from incivility in personal attacks. The UTHR is not primary source for this article; it is only one source of out a total of 6. Moreover, the UTHR source is used to support the sentence about allegations of involvement of the STF. If nothing else, the UTHR is a reliable source for its own allegations. — Black Falcon (Talk) 17:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I hate personal attacks, but i also hate people keep saying dumb while ignoring the obvious. There is no doubt that UTHR is the primary source here. See the other source, one just mention this incident in one raw, and obvious that author is not a researcher of our problem. I strongly believe all the ohter 5 source have taken their contexts from UTHR. And UTHR is NOT always neutral. for outsiders ,for people who has a only a shallow knowledge of our situation it might look unbiased, but I have shown here how and why it fails here. As you are somewhat familiar with our situation, why don't you give a look to their report.. I could report other blunders of UTHR here, but I am sticking to the point here. UTHR has contradicted to its earlier report. It is not a position to  be used as a source here. thanks  Iwazaki  会話. 討論 17:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have also shown that UTHR is a RS and many others have used what UTHR says. If you "strongly believe" that is ok. Since this is wikipedia and not a BLOG it does not matter what one person believe. It matters if there are RS that say can back you up. If there are none then your believe is just that-Your believe. This does not warrant a NPOV and totally disputed tags. Watchdogb 17:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, I can't make Head or Tail of the above post. Iwazaki  会話. 討論 17:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

All of this has been covered in the section "UTHR" above and I do not think a repetition will prove particularly productive. So that we can resolve at least this particular issue without extended (and potentially off-topic discussions) about the UTHR, I propose that we reword the third sentence of the third paragraph to: "The University Teachers for Human Rights, a local human rights organisation, alleges that the Special Task Force, an elite special forces unit of the Sri Lanka Police specialising in counter-terrorist and counter-insurgency operations, perpetrated the massacre." This type of direct/explicit attribution allows us to bypass questions of the neutrality of UTHR and is sanctioned by WP:NPOV. Comments? Black Falcon (Talk) 18:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That's awesome wording. Let's use this version. Rather than what is there now. Watchdogb 19:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Malicious tagging going on
Take a look at the citation given for the death toll number. ''The security situation in the country underwent a significant transformation in the first and second quarters of 1987. In the early months of the year, Tigers continued with their well-established practice of landmines and ambush of government forces. The government security forces often retaliated by opening fire and conducting search and destroy operations in civilian areas. In one such incident, on January 28, the STF (Special Task Force), following a landmine blast which killed 12 of its men near Batticaloa, entered a nearby town and captured 83 non-combatant civilians, including 22 employees of a shrimp farm, and took them to an abandoned church, where they were killed. The Sri Lankan security forces began to advance on all fronts against Tamil militants. '' Is that enough ? Very sad that innocent people are to unaccounted for. Watchdogb 21:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)